for resource -warning very long post

In a previous thread, resource wrote: Hi all

I read alot of these posts but rarely comtribute, but now feel compelled after reading the rubbish put out by protector of the faith Moby T.

Here are some absolute scientific facts that cannot be brushed aside, unlike the conveiniant guesses and contrived models concocted by IPCC and others who fill their pockets with money from this dribble.

Before dealing with each point, here is a link to an explanation of the greenhouse effect.

Also, this is a long post. There were a lot of issues for which resource requested a response. The post contains links to source material.

Anyway, on with the show:

Why has the earth been actually cooling from 1998 whilst levels of carbondioxide are increasing? Shows no correlation; therefore no causation.

It hasn't. The past decade has been warmer than the one before, which was warmer than the one before and so on.

2010 was the equal hottest year on record with 2005.

2011 was the hottest La Nina year on record. When there is a La Nina, global temperature is usually lowered.

1998 was an unusually hot El Nino year.

You would be better advised to step back and look at a longer trend than just the past few years.  For example from GISTEMP:

A period for climate is normally considered to be 30 years.   To see a trend emerging from the noise of normal variation (ENSO etc) is said to require a period of at least 17 years.  Here is an article about a recent paper showing the long term trend with some of the normal variation removed.  As this chart (with 'natural variation' removed) from the article shows, it's getting hotter with each of the five main data sets.

Carbon dioxide is a fertiliser! want to feed the hungry millions?

CO2 is a gas at normal surface temperatures. It is not a fertiliser. You might be confusing it with superphosphate, which is a fertiliser. Fertilisers are added to soils to provide nutrients to plants. CO2 is taken up by plants from the air, not the soil.

Why are all these junket conferences attended by thousands held in exotic locations? How much gas does that produce I wonder. Why not use Skype or similar..hypocrits

An interesting question often posed by climate change deniers when they want to muddy the waters, but not one that has anything to do with climate science per se.

At least 95% of green house effect is caused by water vapour! No increases in vapour have been measured, so its more assumption

This is incorrect. Water vapour is estimated to contribute 50% (all sky) and 65% (clear sky no clouds) to the greenhouse effect.  The contribution to the greenhouse effect is not to be confused with contribution to global warming, for which the direct forcing by water vapour is nil.  With global warming water vapour is a feedback not a forcing.  It amplifies the warming but is not the primary cause of warming.

Here is a paper on water vapour and how observations are matching what is expected. As the earth warms, there is more water vapour in the atmosphere overall (specific humidity rises).

Why did the alarmists change the term "Global warming" to "Climate change"? Because people started to see through the scams,IE: Climategate fraud exposed in 2009. 

Both terms are in wide use. They mean different things.

Global warming refers to the rise in the surface temperature of the earth.

Climate change is what happens when there is a change in the energy in the atmosphere.

The use of the term 'climate change' in official documents of the US administration (dating back to 2003) has been attributed to Frank Luntz, an adviser to President George W Bush, in a memo reported by the UK Guardian - so as not to frighten the masses.  Luntz reportedly wrote: '"A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth," Mr Luntz notes in the memo.". (Luntz apparently now accepts the science of AGW as solid.)

A paper published in Science in 1975 used both terms in its title: "Climatic Change: Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?".

The International Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988.

This point has nothing whatever to do with climate science itself. (A rose by any other name ...)

(Yes, climategate was shown to be a nothing event back in 2009, and even more so in 2011.  Denialists still try to distort the emails but no-one takes any notice now that they understand the context of the emails and realise they are no more than scientists talking to each other.)

Fact:Most plant life dies at 0.02%CO2 and we currently have less than 0.04%. Glass houses use 0.1% to accelerate plant growth! Our breath has more than 100 times more CO2 than air.

The tolerance of plants and animals to CO2 has nothing to do with the effect of atmospheric CO2 as a greenhouse gas and the fact that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is warming the planet.

Moby T do drink beer, soft drink? what are the bubbles made from? better give them up. 

It looks as if you are again confusing the different locations of CO2.   Whether or not I or anyone else consumes fizzy drinks has nothing to do with CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Fact: 97% of CO2 is produced by nature! humans contribute just3%, not going to effect the globe much.

Since human civilisation, until humans started adding a lot of CO2 to the air, the amount of CO2 going in and out of the atmosphere was pretty well in balance.  The evidence for this is that CO2 levels have not changed much since human civilisation 10,000 years ago.  In fact, CO2 has not been as high as it is now for at least 800,000 years as shown in ice core measurements.  One study suggests it's higher now than its been for the past 15 million years.

Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, which results in the earth getting warmer.

CO2 has increased by about 40% since industrialisation.  That is why the surface temperature is rising so quickly and why oceans are getting more acidic.  (About half the CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel ends up in the oceans.)

MobyT is wrong to say climate change has changed faster than any other time. A look at science facts show we have had changes over 10 times greater than now and they occured in just decades. 

First a correction.  What I wrote was  The current increase in CO2 is happening much faster than any in the entire Holocene an probably as fast as almost any time in earth's history. 

Secondly it's not me that you need to argue with, it's the scientists and the evidence.  In an article about a paper in Nature GeoScience reported in ScienceDaily, Dr Harding says:

"Our findings suggest that humankind may be causing atmospheric carbon dioxide to increase at rates never previously seen on Earth, which would suggest that current temperatures will potentially rise much faster than they did during the PETM,"

It is the sun and sunspot activity that drive temperature, science proves the correlation. There is no proven correlation to CO2 and temp.

The energy from the sun keeps the earth warm.  If there is more or less energy from the sun it has an impact on temperature.

The rise in temperature since the 1970s is not correlated with any change in energy coming from the sun.  The only correlation of the recent rise in temperature is with rising greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, which is consistent with the known and measured absorption qualities of greenhouse gases.

This article by a climate statistician shows the impact of the different climate forcings.  Scroll down to the bottom to see what has been happening with the sun and sunspots.

If you want to learn about the relationship between CO2 and temperature, this video is very worthwhile.

Mars and other planets show global warming, why? 

There is no known global warming on Mars.

Not far from Broken Hill is a mine extracting heavy mineral sands from ancient sea beds! Not much industry around when the ocean was up there. 

In the past four billion years there have been rises and falls in sea levels, large variations in the configuration of land masses and many glacials and interglacials.  There are a number of known causes of change in climate over earth's geological history.  At different times different factors have forced climate to change.  This time its the increase in greenhouse gases that is forcing temperatures to rise and climates to change.

Based on geology; before the formation of Limestone(44%CO2) 2500 million yrs ago the atmosphere had hundreds of times the CO2 with no catastrophic greenhouse effect.

If as they say CO2 is a driver of warming; WHY has the earth had 6 major(many minor) ice ages when Co2 was far greater than now. 

Many millions of years ago the sun was much fainter.  It did not send as much energy to earth.  Higher CO2 levels in the past would have been needed for temperatures to be as they are now.  Here is a paper in Nature that explains this:

Solar luminosity on the early Earth was signi?cantly lower than today. Therefore, solar luminosity models suggest that, in the atmosphere of the early Earth, the concentration of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane must have been much higher 1,2 . However, empirical estimates of Proterozoic levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have not hitherto been available. Here we present ion microprobe analyses of the carbon isotopes in individual organic-walled microfossils extracted from a Proterozoic (,1.4-gigayear-old) shale in North China. Calculated magnitudes of the carbon isotope fractionation in these large, morphologically complex microfossils suggest elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the ancient atmosphere—between 10 and 200 times the present atmospheric level. Our results indicate that carbon dioxide was an important greenhouse gas during periods of lower solar luminosity, probably dominating over methane after the atmosphere and hydrosphere became pervasively oxygenated between 2 and 2.2 gigayears ago.

One question - how did you know what the CO2 level was 2500 million years ago?  Was it because a scientist told you so (maybe a paleoclimatologist).  Why do you believe them when they tell you about something that happened two and a half billion years ago but not what is happening today?  Surely it's much easier for scientists to figure out what is happening right now than what was happening way back then.

There are hundreds more facts like these availble to those with open minds! Actual CO2 measuremnets from trapped gas bubbles in ancient ice cores etc. (yeah way higher than now)

I would love it if the reality skeptics could just come back and challenge the facts, but I'm sure they will attact the person etc.
Just because you want it to be true doesnt mean it is!

Some of your 'facts' are factual and some aren't.  With some you've drawn rather odd conclusions.  With some there is no relevance to climate or science.

I wish you well with your further research - the topic is obviously of some interest to you.